6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Saratov. She is the head and legal representative of the farming enterprise “Katyusha” (“the farm”) located in the Saratov Region.
7.  On 15 March 1991 the applicant on behalf of the farm entered into a lease purchase option agreement with the State road maintenance company “Saratovavtrodor” (“the road company”) in respect of certain constructions, including a twelve-flat house (“the constructions”). The agreement provided, in particular, that the purchase option was to be exercised upon payment of rent equal to the book value of the property.
8.  On 1 July 1993 the lease purchase option agreement was amended: the Property Management Committee of the Saratov Region (“the property committee”) replaced the original lessor as a party to the agreement. The other terms and conditions of the agreement were not affected.
9.  On 19 August 1993 the farm credited the required amount to the bank account of the property committee. It thus exercised the purchase option under the lease agreement.
10.  On 6 July 1999 the property committee brought a civil action against the farm. The committee claimed that the agreement of 1 July 1993 was void ab initio because it had been entered into in breach of the law. The committee sought a judicial declaration of the nullity of the 1993 agreement.
11.  On 27 September 1999 the Saratov Regional Commercial Court allowed the committee's action against the farm. The court ordered the farm to return all proceeds from the 1993 agreement to the property committee and bear one half of the court fees.
12.  On 15 December 1999 the Appellate Collegium of the Saratov Regional Commercial Court upheld the judgment of 27 September 1999.
13.  On 12 January 2000 the applicant's representative filed an appeal on points of law.
14.  On 15 February 2000 the Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit quashed the judgments of 27 September and 15 December 1999 and made a new determination of the claim. The court ruled that the agreement of 1 July 1993 had not been a new transaction, but rather a novation of the agreement of 16 March 1991 involving the substitution of the lessor. As to the 1991 agreement, it had been concluded before the regulations, on which the first-instance and appeal courts based their judgments, came into force. The Federal Commercial Court dismissed the claim of the property committee.
15.  The judgment became final and no ordinary appeal lay against it.
16.  On 13 June 2000 Judge Arifullin, a Deputy President of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 15 February 2000. The application was based on the arguments originally advanced by the property committee in support of its claim and repeated verbatim the judgment of the appeal court of 15 December 1999.
17.  On 5 September 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgment of 15 February 2000 and reinstated the judgments of 27 September and 15 December 1999.
18.  On 4 December 2000 the bailiffs' service commenced the enforcement proceedings.
19.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for State registration of her title to the house which formed a constituent part of the disputed constructions.
20.  On 9 October 2000 the Saratov Regional Registration Chamber issued an official certificate formalising the applicant's title to the house acquired under the 1993 lease purchase option agreement.
21.  On 4 March 2002 the property committee filed a civil action against the Saratov Regional Registration Chamber and the farm. The property committee claimed that the registration of the applicant's title to the house of 9 October 2000 should be declared void because it had been grounded on the already invalidated agreement.
22.  After several adjournments of the proceedings, on 18 November 2002 the property committee withdrew its claim. On 2 December 2002 the Commercial Court of the Saratov Region discontinued the proceedings.
23.  On 21 November 2002 a court bailiff of the Tatishchevo District discontinued the enforcement proceedings under the judgment of 27 September 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the property committee.